There is a reason why we call for nerfs, and nerf everything may be a meme for you right now but it was a real, highly demanded thing in the past. And don’t get me wrong, most of us didn’t want game any more harder - we wished the game to be much more fair. And, at least me, some still does (yet I don’t believe it will ever be).
Because, to my understanding, the reason some players use “unfair” advantage is to deal with “unfair” situations (I may overuse the word unfair in upcomimg sentences but consider every single one as quoted “unfair”). One-side nerf, player side in this case, won’t change anything in terms of unfair situations; it will just remove the unfair way to deal with them. So yeah, I am still on the nerf everything boat, so players won’t exploit metagame but in the same time player won’t have such need to exploit metagame. I still remember the Fort Freiheit from BB2 and fighting scylla before all that power creep on both sides.
In the same time I don’t think the game will ever be a tactical TBS, not without serious changes to the core mechanics (like removing mana, I mean willpower, points and keep them only as “sanity healthbar”) and remove all AP multiplications and AP proxy. I would love to see a mod that does that, and I would play the shit out of it, but not without serious changes in every other aspect of the game. Like for example: gear should provide real power multiplication, not a soldier itself. Soldiers should be expendable and easily replacable. AI should take self-preservance into consideration, not only guaranteed damage infliction. And so on and on. The list would be long and I am perfectly aware such thing won’t ever happen.
For once, I think u are right. Im not on the nerf everything boat. But regardless I think you kind of hit the nail in the head. On what the issue is and why is not a simple one to solve.
Im also far more optimistic, if only maybe because I genuinely think the game is amazing despite all the problems it may have. And is one of the few games that has me really excited about each new patch. Also think the problems are not that big, and that the game is overall improving with each patch.
I used to be like that about Civ VI, what a disappointment that one was. Am I naive? I dont know, but I see much more honesty and care from SG than from Fixs.
It seems that some players wish to change PP into a totally different game. While we don’t know what the designers wanted, we just might have their goal. Just needs a few tweaks here and there, and they are listening.
Yup, I agree. But wouldn’t you say that this is what happened? Compare what enemies could do on release to what enemies can do now, and likewise player abilities. One could argue that it could go further, and that there were some moves in opposite direction (like LOTA), but overall that’s the direction the game has taken.
FF was an E3 demo, it was promotional/proof of concept material. The idea that there was this “pure” tactical game represented by FF that got butchered in further development has no connection to reality. It wasn’t really part of the development process of PP at all.
Well, this sort of stuff you can like it or not, but there is nothing wrong with the game design choices per se.
LOL, I find that it does so to excess, see healing obsession
What are you talking about? It was part or Backer Builds (1 & 2), so what do you mean it wasn’t part of development process and was but the promotional proof of concept for E3? I still have it, somewhere. Here’s the YT proof:
To be clear: I don’t care about the map (yet it was awesome), but the gameplay.
Exactly that: there was a game being made (PP), and resources from this game and from additional sources (that is, additional work hours) were pulled to produce a demo (FF), mainly for marketing and perhaps early feedback purposes.
It was a separate branch, not the trunk. Despite the nomenclature (BB1/2), it was not a milestone in the game development process, something on which then additional layers were added, but more like a side project with some specific objectives, distinct from ultimately resulting in a marketable product.
This is pretty much the norm with E3 demos, btw, not for any sinister motives but because at that stage in the development process it’s (often) not possible to produce something that could be played by the general public (even by dedicated hardcore fans/backers).
yep. Fort Freiheit unfortunately was just marketing, not real part of the development process. They showed few things from the process and went further not making the game to be what we saw there.
Even random maps available in BB 1 & 2 were cut out and aren’t available now.
They went further and made different game to what they have described on fig, to what we backed and to what they have show during the marketing period… but that is not my point. My point is, that there is a tactical combat layer in the game. Just run the early BB and Fort Freiheit, this isn’t a “different game” made out of assets, this is still PP without Chaos Reborn stuff.
And I will repeat myself: I don’t care about maps, not at all. I care about gameplay, and combat gameplay hasn’t changed much in core mechanics since then, they just added magic stuff on top of tactical combat.
The build was promotional, yet the development of the core mechanics of that build WAS part of day-to-day development process of main game. So sure, Fort Freiheit as a playable map isn’t part of Phoenix Point game, but saying that as a whole is nothing but E3 demo and next day they have started working on a new game from scratch is just silly. They have just made FF out of stuff they have made till that point to show something playable; process no different to iterative agile sprint demos.
What enemies could do on release was mostly issue of DDA, but I wouldn’t say much has change since last year or so in terms unfair sutiations. There are still enemies you don’t want to act at all and eradicate before they even can because are still same “nukes” as they have been before. There is “unfair” stuff added since release. Pure, with so much armor you will mostly struggle a lot. Umbra also will give you hard times. Myrmidons are new level of “unfairness”. Chirons are still chirons. Even silly arthrons are still lobbing grenades over nest walls afaik, which may be “unfair” on its own.
People may consider all of this unfair, may consider anything else unfair, and will use something you and me consider unfair way against it. You can nerf the player but you will just piss people off. Don’t you remember the “Don’t nerf X because of Y! I need that X to deal with Z!”? You need to change all Xs and Zs to keep overall balance, not just adjust player-side balance to match how you like to play. Start with identifying people’s “Zs” and the source of need of Xs to deal with them, address them and then you will have green light to change Xs.
I am not saying this is good or bad. I am saying this is stuff that makes game less tactical and more meta.
Yeah, that is silly. But has nothing to do with self-preservance becase the self- part is crucial here.
Depends on what you define as “core” mechanics; if you are referring to the skills and such, I can tell you with high degree of confidence that “magic” vs “realism” was never a frontier for the devs. They always wanted to have the power fantasy elements in the game and if you were to put to them “but this is magic!”, they would say “maybe a bit, but we think this works”. What to you is a central issue, because you come from a certain part of the player spectrum, is really a non issue for the devs.
Also, it’s not just the map, it’s everything that comes with it and the fact that it is a single map. There is a world of difference between mechanics for a single map and mechanics for an evolving, procedurally generated, unlimited number of maps. It’s not entirely unlike a trailer vs a full movie.
I think ideally in any (tactics?) game you want to eliminate your opponent before they can act, but I would argue that in fact PP is quite good at making you think before attacking an enemy.
For example, the best way to deal with Umbra is to disable the host without killing it. Myrmidons are very small targets, which makes it hard to kill them at a distance, but they are spectacularly vulnerable to OW because of the way they move and because they only have a melee attack.
Sirens (if you don’t have the DIII) are most vulnerable after they MC someone, because they have to get into range and there are many different ways of breaking the MC without even killing the Siren.
Explosive Chirons that were the object of so many complaints on release have practically disappeared and the player given the blast vest.
I have not seen Arthrons lobbing nades through nest walls, but their nades have been nerfed to oblivion anyway.
Not sure how or should I respond to that. I have never argued it isn’t like that by design and wasn’t conscious, developer decision. I can and will argue if design decisions made game more or less tactical or metagame oriented and how I feel about it. In the end they could release a pac-man clone and I would still say that early builds were more tactical TBS than final product is.
Again, I didn’t give a shit about level design and if level is proceduraly generated or not. Turn-based system, level traversing, ballistic shooting, body part damage, LoS-based cover system and few other core mechanics are what I cared about in Fort Freiheit and they were implemented into main game almost unchanged in general idea. And these bare-bones core mechanics in FF were fine (bugged and flawed, but still fine for an early build), tactical experience. Yet in a full-release we have, by a conscious design decision, power-rangers skills as a core mechanic and game balance built around these skills and their combinations that makes game much less tactical. Period.
Edit:
You don’t have to tell me how to deal with anything. I am telling you that people use, what you think is, unfair combination because they deal with, what they think is, unfair situation. You can nerf the shit out of player, but those people will still be in, what they think is, unfair situation without the tools how to deal with it. I don’t care if devs will nerf the player as you think it will solve the problem or not, but probably those people will care much more. I have my doubts if it will make game any more tactical or balanced, hard and unforgiving for sure, but that is just it.
Core mechanic is something you can’t avoid. As a player you have full control over how to build your operatives (except for the traits, but there is a mod that gives you preview of the traits before you hire new recruits). So can have power rangers, semi-power rangers and plain rangers.
Yeah… and yet the whole game balance is built around such non-core mechanic you are free to avoid, right? Just like you can avoid body part targetting as much as you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that manual targetting and body part disablement is the core mechanic of Phoenix Point.
But that is just a side-note. I don’t want to discuss who and why considers something a core mechanic or not; this is not the point, and is a direct way deep into yak shaving.
Destiny III is VERY expensive in terms of materials and tech needed to create them and the ammo is very, very expensive.
I’ve found that most things that seem OP get very pricy 89/180 tech/mats for 12 shots?
The Laser SR is 9/18 for 15 shots
The Phoenix SR is 2/32 for 16 shots.
While the mats for Phoenix SR is more than laser SR, tech is far more rare, about 5x more rare.
Thus, in terms of mats only, Laser is 95+18 =63 or 63/15 = 4.2 per shot vs. 25+32 = 42, or 2.6 per shot.
But has nothing to do with self-preservance becase the self- part is crucial here. 
I have never argued it isn’t like that by design and wasn’t conscious, developer decision. I can and will argue if design decisions made game more or less tactical or metagame oriented and how I feel about it. In the end they could release a pac-man clone and I would still say that early builds were more tactical TBS than final product is.